this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1229 points (97.5% liked)

People Twitter

5283 readers
1150 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Technically, no one actually died, the story is simply a narrative attempting to parallel the story of Achan keeping the spoils of Jericho for himself in the book of Joshua.

And yeah, sure, it was because they lied. Because if they only gave a dollar of the proceeds and kept the rest for themselves, that would have been fine, which was why the author was explicitly paralleling that one other time when someone kept goods for themselves and died for it.

Why can't things change across a narrative.

They do - especially when the narrative is gradually constructed over centuries.

For example, early on in the narrative of Christian canon development you have 1 Cor 9 where Paul is debating with other Christians in Corinth who oppose the notion of people ministering being able to have monetary gain (in keeping with the no purse prohibition and sentiments found elsewhere in extra-canonical sayings attributed to Jesus).

A few decades later you have the Gospel of Mark written which contained a saying attributed to Jesus opposing carrying a purse when ministering with no exceptions.

Later on, this gets copied into Luke and Matthew who use Mark as a source.

Later on, Marcion's version of Luke gets recorded by critics quoting it, so we know that version at that time has absolutely no last supper reversal of carrying a purse. So either Marcion was very selectively removing a ton of nuanced things from across the Epistles and Luke... or things were being added in later on (like when Paul swears to the Holy Spirit he's telling the truth in Romans 9:1, an entire chapter absent from Marcion's version).

Finally, the versions of Luke we have today have a special reversal of not carrying a purse that's more in line with Paul's side of the argument in 1 Cor 9 and the practices of the canonical church over the years after Jesus was dead. A reversal that was absent in the earliest version of Luke recorded.

So yeah, narratives do change. Just like there's a first edition, then a second edition, etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So yeah, narratives do change. Just like there’s a first edition, then a second edition, etc.

That's not an example of the internal narrative changing, that's the external narrative. Retcons are not what I was talking about.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I know. But what you were talking about made no sense given the context and text's history.

If there were internal narrative changes like that in Mark that migrated to Luke or were found in Marcion's version, there'd be no questioning that an author was having that change take place in their original composition.

But what you have is a brief interpolated reversal of an earlier prohibition attributed to Jesus, a position both canonically and extra-canonically, suddenly inserted out of the blue in the narrative which doesn't appear in the earlier source where the original prohibition comes from and isn't even present in the earliest extant version of the story where the reversal is.

It's not an internal narrative change like Harry Potter becoming a wizard.